Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. vi. 
Eusmerinthus Grt., 1S77. 
Type: E. geminatus. 
1. kindermanni Led. 
2. ccecus Men. 
3. planus Walk. 
argus Men. 
4. geminatus Say. 
? jamaicensis Dru 
Copismerinthus Grt., 1886. 
Type: C. cerisii. 
1. ocellata Linn, 
v. atlanticus Aust. 
2. cerisii Kirb. 
opthalmicus Boisd. 
vancouverensis Butl. 
3. ? saliceti Boisd. 
The classificator must rely in great part on the body characters, the 
pattern of ornamentation, and, so far as I see, will run no great risk of 
being contradicted by the neurational features overturning his group¬ 
ings. Nevertheless, when taking the question of specialization in hand, 
the neuration will afford him valuable hints which he will do well to re¬ 
spect. As to the name for the above genus ( Copismerinthus ) Kirby has 
adopted my former and original opinion that ocellata was the type of 
Smennthus , an opinion I retained in my “Hawk Moths of North 
America.” But, from my notes of Latreille, I believe populi may be 
really the true type of his genus. Whichever way the matter is settled, 
by reference to the original works, I have at least here sorted out the 
species accordingly as the front tibiae are or are not armed. The North 
American genera Paonias (for exccecatus ), Calasymbolus ( astylus ) seem 
to me on other grounds distinct from each other and from the above. 
(Consult an article on the frenulum of the British species of Smennthus , 
by Geo. C. Griffiths, Ent. Record. VI, 250.) 
Saturniades. 
In the “ Saturniiden,” p. 6, I figured the first larval stage of the Silk¬ 
worm, Bombyx mori , showing, from the arrangement of the tubercles, 
that this larva was related to the large group circumscribed by Dyar and 
which I had called Agrotides. The Silkworm has therefore to be ex¬ 
cluded from the Emperor Moths. The Saturniades, cleared of this 
foreign element, have been taxonomically defined by Dyar by the 
presence in the larva of a system of subprimary tubercles, wanting in 
the Sphingides, as here accepted.* The pupa gives the moth within the 
cocoon. The Citheronian habit is not recorded. A nearer relation¬ 
ship, such as we can show for the Sphingides, with the Tineides is not 
yet indicated. There exists a temptation to regard the Ptoch opsychidse 
* Mr. Grote has misunderstood me. I separate the Saturniides and Sphingides on 
t he position of tubercle iv; neither group has distinguishable sub-primary tubercles. 
Endromis is a Bombycid except for the absence of sub-primary tubercles in stage I, 
which I do not regard as a strong character at present. I shall return to this point 
elsewhere.—H. G. Dyar. 
